Yesterday I wrote about the “wild west” mentality that appears to be running amok. The Evil Trio of the NRA, Conservative Christian Cult, and the Republican Party are in support of this ideology. They say it is the “constitutional right” of people to carry arms, even openly. But, what about the rights of people who do not want guns around their children or in the restaurant they are eating at? What about the “constitutional rights” of people who simply want to spend a day at the park with their children without fear? In other words, what about the rest of us and our rights?

As I mentioned yesterday, there are a myriad of problems with allowing open carry laws in society. The biggest one is who are the people with the “constitutional right” to bear arms, and who are the “crazies” who should not be allowed to carry arms? Who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys”? These people are showing up at a lot of places “demonstrating” their right to open carry. We don’t know if these people are authorized to carry these weapons or if they are criminals who want to rob the place.

Shortly after Georgia passed their “carry everywhere” law, parents were alarmed when an armed man showed up at the park where their kids were playing little league baseballand waved his gun around shouting “look at my gun!” and “there’s nothing you can do about it.” Parents did call the police. After arriving, they determined that under this Georgia Law, he committed no crime and was let go. That didn’t make the parents feel any better. What would have happened if a parent of one of these children was carrying a concealed weapon and shot the man when he saw the gun, but not necessarily heard exactly what he said?

I suffer from partial hearing loss. I can attest that in a park where little league is being played, I don’t always hear what people next to me are saying much less people several feet away. If a parent shot and killed this person in the park, would he have been charged with murder? I am certain the Evil Trio would be screaming for it to be so. Fortunately it didn’t happen. But we cannot overlook the possibility of it happening in the future.

In another example, just last week another group of open carry proponents decided to have on of their demonstration by going to a Jack in the Box en masse. They scared the employees so badly they hid themselves in the walk-in freezer. These so-called demonstrators were very confused by the response of police who assumed there was an armed robbery in progress and dispatched a bunch of cops to the scene.

“We’re not breaking the laws,” Haros one of the demonstrators said. “We’re not here to hurt anybody. We’re not trying to alarm anybody. We’re doing this because it’s our constitutional right.”

Haros apparently believes that openly carrying firearms “helps the police”. He also said citizens should know that these “demonstrations” will continue in the future. He said: “It’s just for safety purposes. Officers can’t be there at all times. We understand that. They can only do so much.” So, according to Mr. Haros, scaring the living shit out of people who are just trying to scratch by on minimum wage by carrying guns into their store is for “safety purposes”. They must think that it is okay to scare people to death just so they can have the right to openly carry arms. What about the worker’s rights to NOT be traumatized by gun-toting ignorant fools?

Again, what if one of the officers who responded to this incident thought that one of them was reaching for his gun when police arrived? What if that officer thought there was going to be trouble and opened fire? What would have been the consequences? There was a real possibility that mayhem could have broken out and people could have been killed.

The Georgia law says that restaurant owners can refuse to allow guns into their store. But, what is going to happen if one does refuse to allow guns into the store and someone carries one in anyway? No owner expects their employees to confront armed people. How is an unarmed person supposed to throw out someone who doesn’t care about the rights of others? What will be the consequences if the police are called? I can foresee many problems and tragedies coming from such laws.

Think about it. Sunday is Mother’s Day. Many Americans will be taking their mothers out for dinner, or lunch, or brunch, or whatever. If you take your wife and kids out to dinner, what will you think and/or do if someone walks into the restaurant openly carrying a gun? Will you feel safe and comfortable? Or, will you fear that a robbery is about to take place? When everyone is carrying a gun, who are the bad guys and who are the good guys? It is impossible to tell unless something happens.

But the Evil Trio doesn’t care. They only care about their interests and their rights. If their interests or “rights” traumatize you, that is your problem. If their “rights” result in a mass shoot-out, that is the fault of the police because the cops would have over-reacted. If your child is caught in the crossfire of an accidental shooting and is killed, don’t expect any sympathy from them. They will tell you that you should have had your own gun to protect your child, so it will be your fault!

It is bad enough to know that in many states the person sitting next to you in the restaurant this Sunday may legally be carrying a concealed weapon. But to allow people to openly carry their guns into a restaurant, a park, a school zone, or a church can be very scary. So as you can see, the Evil Trio doesn’t care about “constitutional rights”. They only care about “their constitutional rights”. I am not a fortune-teller. I liked to tell people I had to work for a living because I failed mind-reading class. But, I can see where these laws can potentially cause some real trouble in the future. We can only hope that innocent people won’t be hurt when it happens. But, then, innocent people are always hurt when weirdos with guns show up.

As I have written before. Gun ownership comes with social responsibilities. The Evil Trio doesn’t believe in social responsibilities. Is there any better reason to vote them out of office this November?

26 Responses

The problem isn’t our guns. It’s YOUR reaction to our guns. I’m always armed in public but you wouldn’t know because I don’t open carry and make myself a target for your fear. You do not have a Constitutional right to tell me not to carry a gun. I DO have a Constitutional right (but more importantly, a human right) to self defense. Disarming good people does not make you safer. You will never disarm bad people because they don’t obey laws. The only way to protect yourself from bad people is to shoot them before they shoot you. Don’t tell me that’s the job of the police. They can come file paperwork after you’re dead and try to catch the criminal but how is that protecting you? Be a good person with a gun. Educate yourself about guns. Learn to use them safely. Practice the skill and be ready to defend yourself if the time comes, because no one else will be there to save you.

Sorry Marc, but you missed the whole point. I am not arguing against gun ownership. I am arguing against irresponsible gun ownership. Many of the states where I have lived have very strong conceal permit laws. You need to have proper training in the use of guns. You need to have a license to carry a concealed gun. One state even required you to pass a “shoot, don’t shoot” test. Open carry laws do not have such restrictions. If you are allowed to own a gun, you are allowed to carry it openly wherever you go. You say “the only way to protect yourself from bad people is to shoot them before they shoot you.” With everyone carrying a gun openly, how do you know who are bad people and who are good people? These instances showed that people do react negatively when someone carries a gun openly for no apparent reason. What would you have said if someone like you carrying a concealed weapon saw that man in a park waving a gun around and shot him? Is that murder or self-defense? Is it appropriate to pull out a gun and start shooting in a crowded area? What about in a movie theater when people are running around in panic? When do you shoot your gun in self-defense? These are all things that are part of responsible gun ownership. I know all about guns. I have been trained to use guns. I have used guns in real situations. I know first-hand what the results are when a gun is fired. This is not about being against people owning guns. It is about being against irresponsible gun ownership. Open carry laws are bad laws. They blur the lines and do not ensure the safe use of guns or the safety of everyone around. They merely comply with the “wild west” mentality, where as I wrote yesterday Town Marshals outlawed the right to carry a gun in town. We deserve better than that. I may not have the right to say you cannot own a gun. But, society does have the right to say where and how you may carry your gun. That is simple common sense with the general good of the public in mind. These laws are going to lead to tragedy. I hope you are not the one on the wrong end of that tragedy.

Rights come with both responsibility and risks. Just like how you have the right to publish this highly opinionated and character assassination of three groups.

We run the risk of poisoning the hearts and minds of the next generation with simple words. Just like this filth you put here on your website. I accept that risk. But I will take responsibility of my own children to know when filth, danger, things that go against their best interest come upon their lives. They will know how to proceed, deal, and move on to progress on. They will understand that the only person they can change is themselves.

Your lean left ideals are forcing change on others via Government. You tell to Government to tax, fine, prosecute, those that go against your ideals and your safety. Perhaps I should do the same since your opinion offends me and my rights to not be offended and be safe and sane in my head is being violated. But I won’t. That would be hypocritical of me to force my morality on you. I also don’t think that a right to not hurt my emotions isn’t recognized and protected in the US Constitution.

You bring up so many hypothetical situations in this piece. If this, if that. Guess what, life is full of ifs and stop trying to control it. What if the restaurant goes up in flames? What if a drunk driver leaving the lot hits you? What if guns are not the only things out there that will cause you bodily harm? Stop living in fear and take responsibility of your own safety and success. No one is obligated to take care of you.

Rodney you started out so well when you talked about responsibility and risks. That was the whole point of this article. I never said that anyone carrying a weapon legally should be arrested. The unfortunate knee jerk reaction about guns is part of the root cause. We can never come to a decision that is right and fair, and legal, about guns until we have very reasonable discussions. Yes, I brought up hypotheticals. Yes, hypotheticals are part of life as you explained about fires and accidents. But seriously, put yourself in the position of those parents watching a little league game. Suddenly a man appears and starts waving a gun around and yelling. Would your finely tuned powers be able to decide if that person is legally carrying the gun, or would they tell you it is filth that needs to be taken out? Even if you heard what he said, would you have immediately believe him, or would you have drawn your weapon out as well? This may seem hypothetical, but it is not far from a reality that could have happened. I do not live in fear. I have taken responsibility for my and my family’s safety for years. I have even taken responsibility for other people’s safety too. As I mentioned before, I have been trained in the use of weapons and have used them before. This is not about taking away rights. It is about making sure everyone’s rights are defended. Did you ever take and pass a “shoot, don’t shoot” class? I have. It is not an easy decision to make and you must make it in a split second. If you feel that your safety is being threatened because others want to make sure you have proper training before being issued a license to carry a gun, then you are the one who is living in fear. As I told Marc earlier, when one of these tragedies happens, I hope you are not the one on the wrong end of it.

Hi Mark. Let me start by saying thank you for a discussion. This is what this country needs.

You being a serviceman should know that reading a person’s body language is a lifesaver. I’ll go ahead and bite and put myself in the situation (hypothetically of course) you provided:

“But seriously, put yourself in the position of those parents watching a little league game. Suddenly a man appears and starts waving a gun around and yelling. Would your finely tuned powers be able to decide if that person is legally carrying the gun, or would they tell you it is filth that needs to be taken out?”

I would watch him. There is a difference in body language between a person being a jerk and being malicious. That I can discern. I won’t be wondering if he has a legal right to do carry (he does as per 2nd amendment). Why? Because all citizens (and immigrants) in USA are innocent until proven guilty. If he did anything illegal, he will be tried and judged by his peers in a court of law. Just like it should be done. Would I approach him? Perhaps if I were a single man. I would rather just leave the area with my family if I found his demeanor to be malicious. It is in my best interest to keep my own family safe.

You mention classes. Should we start requiring classes for all other rights as well? Should we start taxing to vote or obtain a permit to vote? Should we start taxing when people want to protest? I’m sure there are sections of the USA that does this (and its wrong) but it is disabling those that do not have the financial backing to exercise a god given right. Requirements(like taking courses or obtaining licenses) on exercising Rights is limiting a right no matter how you spin it.

Yes, body language is a beginning point. But it is not infallible. Rights in this country are determined to be recognized simply because that is what our founding fathers believed. Remember, at the time, individual rights were not the common factor in the world. I am still and will always be in favor of classes and requirements in carrying a gun. Owning a gun to be kept in the house may not require the same type of restrictions as carrying one. When a person carries a weapon in public, that person is assuming a lot of responsibility. If for some reason that person pulls his or her weapon and starts shooting, there are good and bad possibilities that will occur. As a result, I strongly believe that training is essential before we allow citizens to carry guns. The last thing I would want is to have someone start shooting who is not qualified to hit a target. Too much collateral damage, namely innocent people be shot, would result.

There are a lot of groups that could offer this training for free. The heroes of the gun lobbyists the NRA could be used for the training. But, I also believe that the instructors need to be licensed to teach the programs. That way, people will be learning the proper use and handling of weapons. I also believe that these carry permits should be require that each year, the individual should be required to re-certify with their weapon in order to keep their permit. If police and military need to re-certify, why shouldn’t the same be true for citizens.

The basic fact is that the general public does have the “right” to be safe in public places. Allowing non-trained or non-certified gun carriers does not offer that safety. You could argue that only properly trained and properly certified people with guns will. The argument is still about who should be allowed to carry a weapon and who shouldn’t. The other rights you mention do not affect public safety. Yes, I know some demonstrations do result in violence which I detest, but shooting a gun in public is far more dangerous to the public health than demonstrations.

I am glad to see that you would get our family out of there. But I know too many people who would have just shot first and asked questions later. Without some restrictions, that is the type of society we are sure to fall into. Even if you were leaving, the nut who shoots first puts your family in danger just as much as the nut waving the weapon.

I’m sorry, but owning a gun is a right granted by the constitution. If the Founding Fathers had left that out of the constitution, you would not have the right to “bear arms”. It wouldn’t be in the law of the country.

As for your checklist for voting, unfortunately, that is becoming more and more true. These Voter ID laws are an example of just that. You say it shouldn’t cost anything to exercise your rights, but they want to make sure it costs you something to vote. Even in states that say they will give you and ID for free, if you don’t have a license, it still costs if you need to get a copy of your birth certificate. So, based on your arguments, you must be against these Voter ID laws too.

By the way, no Hitler was not “voted” into office. He was asked by the President of Germany to form a government. And yes, 80% of the people in all polls favor a universal background check to purchase a gun. It has been brought up in Congress, but Mr. Boehner won’t allow it to come up for a vote. He is going against the people’s wishes.

“I’m sorry, but owning a gun is a right granted by the constitution. If the Founding Fathers had left that out of the constitution, you would not have the right to “bear arms”. It wouldn’t be in the law of the country.”

Wrong Rights are recognized, respected, and protected by the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers left out the 1st, then it wouldn’t be the law of the country? Doesn’t that sound like a ridiculous statement to you? Just because the Founding Fathers wrote in the 1st amendment means they granted us the Right? Listen to yourself and apply your logic to other Rights recognized in the US Constitution.

Also sorry, you are right. Hitler was appointed by representatives of the Citizens. Voting doesn’t kill immediately. Its the slow method. You vote in someone to put more taxes, fines, poor economy, bad judgement. All because of votes.

Also you have no right to safety in public.
“The basic fact is that the general public does have the “right” to be safe in public places. ”

You have a Right to life, liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. How do you keep your Rights? Do you rely on someone else to give them to you? What happens if someone tries to infringe on any of your Rights? Believing that no one has the capacity of infringing your Right is wrong and irresponsible. Even worse is not being prepared to protect your Rights.

The rights afforded in the amendments were added after the fact. It was later that it was realized that certain rights the Founding Fathers believed in were not addressed in the Constitution. Yes, according to the times that the constitution was written, if the Founding Fathers left out these amendments, then they would not be the “law of the land” until we added them. It makes sense that they amended the constitution to include them. But, the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were not in the original constitution. They are in the Declaration of Independence which was merely a written document justifying the revolution. We as a nation were fortunate that the amendments were added, but there was nothing that forced the Founding Fathers to add them other than their own beliefs.

The problem we have in discussing what the Founding Fathers intended to be in the constitution, and why they put in what they did is that we weren’t there. We only have history to teach us what they may have been thinking. Benjamin Franklin was against the Presidency. He considered just another form of a monarchy. The rights are there whether or not you believe they were just recognized or granted under our form of government. They were not all recognized nor granted by many countries in the world at the time. That is what makes our constitution so unique and admirable.

What if I don’t like what you say? What about my right not to listen to nonsense? Oh, I don’t have that right, just like you don’t have the “right” to keep law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons. In your response above to Marc you say that you aren’t against gun ownership, just against irresponsible gun ownership. Evidently you missed the whole “bear arms” part of the 2nd Amendment.

Openly carrying isn’t irresponsible. In fact, it has stopped far more crimes than those committed by criminals’ illegal ownership by a HUGE margin. If a rampage shooter is stopped by a citizen, the average number of people killed is only 2.4 people. If we wait for police, that number goes to 14.3 deaths. Even criminals say that armed citizens are far more of a deterrent to them than the police!

The bottom line is that people MUST be allowed to carry in public, and the only people that have had any issues with open carry laws are criminals and people with unreasonable fears. You don’t have the right to be comfortable, especially at the expense of other people’s basic human rights.

Well, I don’t know where you have gotten your statistics, but I’ll take your word for them. Problem is, I haven’t been able to find a single case where a citizen stopped a rampage shooter. I may have missed it in my research, but I can’t find one. Secondly, carrying a gun by definition is not a “human right.” It is a right granted by the second amendment. The Founding Fathers could have just as easily not included it. There are a whole lot of countries that have stronger gun laws than we do. I don’t know if you ever took formal gun safety classes. I don’t know what you needed, if anything, to carry a gun in your state. That should be part of the whole discussion. I don’t have any unreasonable fears. I know how to protect myself and my family. Some might consider your need to carry a gun all of the time as unreasonable fear. I don’t believe that. But, this knee=jerk reaction against anyone wanting a serious discussion about guns and gun safety as my “wanting to take your guns away” is an unreasonable fear. Point is, whether or not you have a right to bear arms, doesn’t mean that you should carry one all of the time, especially in the open. Without proper training, carrying a weapon in any fashion is irresponsible.

Thank you for the article. However, I don’t think it shows your argument too well. Rather, I believe it shows my argument more. Mr. Meli used good judgment in not firing his weapon when he saw an innocent person behind the shooter. Instead he took cover and never fired his gun. I don’t know if he ever took the type of classes I have been talking about, but that is the kind of decision I would expect from someone who did. Someone without that type of training is more likely to fire his weapon. They may not have even seen the person behind the shooter. It said that Mr. Meli was emotionally drained by the incident. If he had opened fire and the innocent by-stander behind the shooter was hit, I guaranty he would be an emotional wreck. He knew that. That is why he did not shoot.

Mark, He still stopped a mass shooting event. That was your requirement for finding an article. Some crazy murder arrived at a mall with an AR-15. Concealed Carrier stopped him. Murderer took his own life because there was someone willing to fight back to stop him.

You moved the goal post.

Now the requirements is he must satisfy your standards? And if it doesn’t, its not a concealed carrier stopping a mass murder?

Please correct my misunderstanding, because that’s how I see you present your counter.

You see that he stopped the shooter, and that is fine. I don’t see that. The article is incomplete as to whether or not he actually confronted the shooter, and that leaves it up to interpretation. My interpretation of the article is that he pulled his gun in order to stop the shooter, but decided against it when he saw the innocent by-stander. Which in my opinion is good judgment. There is nothing in the article that states he believes the shooter actually saw him with a weapon. That is why it is subject to interpretation. I am not going to say your interpretation is incorrect because I don’t know. The shooter may have seen him, and therefore you would be correct. I don’t believe I moved the goal post on this. It still shows that proper training is necessary for someone to carry a gun and use is responsibility.

You should really try fact checking. Just like we (Open Carry Texas and Open Carry Tarrant County, different organizations that work together for a common goal) have said all along, this is false. The employees did not call the cops, a passer by did. The employees had no problem and served the customers quite professionally. The cops (Sgt. Bush) did say that the employees hid in the freezer, but as we all know the cops often lie, as they did here. A copy of the phone call reporting them is available on youtube. This was a drastic lie and overreaction to a peaceful and law-abiding group of persons exercising their rights.

From the NY Times:

An earlier version of this post included
information from Sgt. Ray Bush of the Forth Worth Police Department, who
wrote in an email last week that the employees at the Jack in the Box
where Open Carry Texas staged a demonstration “locked themselves
inside a freezer for protection out of fear the rifle-carrying men
would rob them.” However, Brian Luscomb, vice president of corporate
communications for Jack in the Box, told the New York Times this
evening, “Our employees told us that they did not hide in the freezer.”
We have amended the post to reflect this new information.

I am not someone who writes from the hip so to speak. I do fact check my information before I write anything. Thank you for pointing out the NY Times reversal. It was not available at the time I wrote my article. The point about the Jack in the Box was not a drastic lie or overreaction. It was based on the information available at the time of my writing. It was merely an example of how people with guns, whether they are good guys or bad buys do make people nervous. Maybe you thing that is okay. Maybe you think that making people nervous is a good thing. I do not agree with that. The fact that the police were called is proof that someone saw these people and became nervous enough to call them. By the way, I do not use YouTube for my research. There is too much garbage to syphon through to find the real truth there. YouTube has more false information on it than news sources.

Hey, come out to the range sometime with me so I can teach you about guns so that you’re not afraid. I don’t agree with the cops in Georgia of just letting the guy go… He is the reason responsible gun owners look bad. That was stupid and I am glad that people called the cops on that idiot. I would love to open carry but I don’t want people to fear me and have the cops come and have a talk with me because someone got scared. If people had just a firearms class I would be happy; they would know that guns aren’t the problem it is just bad people. The firearm can’t make a decision to shoot or not… Bad people on this planet are the problem not responsible gun owner. I carry for not only my protection, but also my family and friends. I want to be able to save my nephew from a mad man who would want to take him when I take him to the zoo. I want to stop that person from kill people at a restaurant because the restaurant fired him over something stupid… I am here to protect myself and m,y fellow human being from EVIL. I respect your choice to not carry or even own a gun, BUT when someone walks up to you and says that they’re going to rape and kill you or someone you love AND YOU DON”T HAVE THAT GUN… then you will think of firearms differently. Have a great week, and stay safe!

I know all about guns. One of the problems in the service is you cannot do proper “peace keeping” without guns and bombs and things. I have never been afraid of guns. I have used them in real situations. This article was not about responsible gun ownership. It was about laws that allow irresponsible people from carrying guns wherever they want. Why is it that every time someone like me wants to have a meaningful discussion, gun owners always bring up fear as the reason for people not liking guns in public. Yes, bad people are the real problem. But, as I have said before, most people don’t have an internal radar that tells them who is a “bad guy with a gun” and who is a “good guy with a gun”. Something needs to be done. Open dialogue is the only way both sides can come together and make our country safer without arming to the hilt.

ALSO, school zones are off limits for RESPONSIBLE gun owners. People like YOU think that we can just carry onto the school without getting into trouble. School shooting happen because there is’n’t anyone to protect students. Do you really think that one police officer is going to make a difference when the evil walks up to him or her and kills them first? WHO is going to defend the students that? There needs to be 2 or more officers on school grounds and teachers, I am not advocating that they should carry but it is an option, should know how to handle a firearm in case an officer can’t help…

School shootings have happened because people bring guns into schools. This has dropped off, but it still happens. Remember, at Columbine, there were armed guards, that’s plural, but it still happened and the armed guards did not stop it. You are correct RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not carry guns into school zones. So, why is it necessary for states to pass laws that do allow guns in school zones?

Mark, I want to thank you for your logical and thoughtful article. As a father of two, I am very concerned about my children being in a public place with guns – whether concealed or open-carried. Although I do not follow any religion, I find it quite ironic, as well as hypocritical, that Christians support gun rights when Christ himself was a staunch pacifist who said “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword”. In all honesty, I am completely against guns except for in the case of law enforcement and military. Further, I look forward to the day that the second amendment is significantly modified or repealed, as it WILL be. It is inevitable, regardless of what the right-wing may think. Only then will future generations of Americans, such as my children, be safe from the gun violence that plagues our country. Keep up the good work.

Thank you for the nice words. I am not sure about only the police and military being the only ones allowed to carry guns. But, I am convinced that proper training is necessary before anyone can carry a gun. At some point, I am pretty sure the second amendment may change. It seems that the millinials, as they are called, are even less thrilled about gun ownership than we are. Only time will tell. But, we cannot come to any definitive answers until we can have meaningful dialogue without the knee-jerk reactions that usually come up.

Comments are closed.

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.